etymology of MANDAN

[Robert L. Rankin]

> Can the name be analyzed in a Siouan language?

The short answer is "no."  The longer answer has to do with the fact that,
unless it is transparent in the native language of that tribe itself (and
sometimes even then), any analysis is suspect.  Ethnonyms are simply
notorious for being folk-etymologized, often as pejoratives, of course.
I asked the Kaw-speaking woman I had recorded over the course of several
years about the Potowatomi's at one point.  She answered "Oh yeah,
[bado'wadombe]; it means 'they're lookin' at the hills'."  As indeed it
does.  But not in Potawatomi.

In Siouan, for example, /[maN] is a root for 'flint, chert', for 'earth',
and for 'gamebird' -- take your pick.  [daN] in Dakotan is a popular
diminutive suffix.  An amateur might try to make something of that, e.g.,
'little turkeys', 'little arrowheads/blades', etc.  But it wouldn't be
something a person would want to commit to print.

> The Mandans were contacted by Europeans first from Hudson Bay through
> Assiniboine territory, and later through Sioux and Arikara lands, so
> there are several geographically possible sources for the French and
> English names.

> (The Eng. name Mai-tain-ai-thi-nish occurs in the York Factory journal
> for 1721, and its form suggests Cree influence, probably on an
> Assiniboine form.) Ethnonyms were often transmitted into Eng. through
> more than one language during the early contact period, so MANDAN may
> have several native etyma. The search for a single etymon in these
> cases is often misguided and misleading.

Exactly.  The citations are certainly worth pointing out.

> Almost all Eng. variants have -n- closing the first syllable,
> representing, I assume, nazalization of the preceding -a-.

I agree.

> The Dakota (Mawa'tadaN/Mawa'taNna) & Lakota (Miwa'taNni) names (Riggs
> 1890) have -w- after the initial vowel, with no nasalization
> indicated: are the -n- and -w- etymologically equivalent, analogously
> to the alternation Amahami/Awahawi?

What little I know of Dakotan dialects tells me that these three terms
cannot all have come from one proto-form.  So either analogy (folk
etymology) or borrowing from multiple sources has already been at work
just within this language.  The 1st two could be dialectal variants.

-n- and -w- probably are not ever etymologically equivalent.  However,
sometimes speakers of the several languages insert a glide in between
dissimilar vowels.  It would be epenthetic rather than etymological, and
in that case -r-/-n-, on the one hand, and -w- on the other, might be
alternatives. Normally -w- is ONLY inserted when one of the two
surrounding vowels is rounded, either [o] or [u].  So here I'd guess
there's no n/w relationship.

> I've found 3 instances in Eng. texts (1795-1805) of forms in final -l
> (Mandal, Mandel): what is the relationship of the -l with the usual
> final -n? (I note that the Dakota & Lakota names both end in -nV.)

I hope a Dakotanist will answer that part.  Word-final -l/-n is a
characteristic of Dakotan dialects though.  Lakota (Teton) has -l where
several of the other dialects have -n.

Perhaps someone can do better for you with this conundrum than I have been
able to do.

Best,

Bob